Re: [Ltru] Re: proto-draft-10

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> It still contains the unused 5*8ALPHA "registered languages"
> instead of reviving the good tradition of i-whatever tags
> for this in the times of 639-3 likely unnecessary loophole.

I agree on the "likely unnecessary", but not on the "good
tradition".  That particular tradition is a bad one; we're
better off with one-part language subtags, even in the
escape hatch.

> There's a typo s/SHOULD NOT/should not/ in the 1901 + 1996
> example, don't use 2119 keywords in examples.  Far too much
> "MUSTard" in RFC 4646 and the draft, compare RFC 2119:
> 
> | Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used
> | with care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only
> | be used where it is actually required for interoperation
> | or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm

That's for protocols.  We are trying to constrain the behavior
of human beings, a far more difficult set of objects.

-- 
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      cowan@ccil.org
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru